37 dogs at centre of legal battle: Telangana HC orders inspection of new home after 5 pets die in NGO custody

Appearing as party-in-person on Thursday, Pidaparthi contended that her “children” were dragged away using dog-catching nets and housed in a shelter for stray dogs where they cannot survive. “These are our children and have been an integral part of our family for over 13 years. Just because they were barking, it does not entitle GHMC to come and pick up our dogs. Whatever has been alleged in the affidavits, I deny them. How did they survive in our house for decades if there was cruelty against them as alleged?” she argued.

When asked about the well-being of dogs in the PFA’s custody, counsel Shreya Paropkari informed the bench that five dogs in the age group of two to six years have succumbed to parvo virus infection while undergoing treatment. She contended that none of the 37 dogs (including six puppies) were vaccinated or sterilised, and claimed that they had never left the confines of the petitioner’s flat and hence any exposure to the virus could be fatal. She submitted that those dogs came in with symptoms and there was no delay in administering treatment to them. The rest of the 27 dogs and five puppies in the PFA’s custody were currently stable and being vaccinated, she said. Paropkari also submitted that three reports with weekly updates detailing the physical and psychological well-being of the dogs have been placed on record.

Pidaparthi, meanwhile, alleged that some of the dogs died in custody of the NGO due to lack of proper care. The bench then asked the GHMC’s counsel as to why he has not examined the well-being of the dogs and reported back to the court as directed by the court.

Taking note of the NGO veterinarian’s report, the bench observed that all the dogs were making good progress and their rehabilitation was moving in a positive direction. The bench also noted the recommendations of the veterinarian regarding sterilisation, continued veterinary care, and appropriate nutrition for the long term well-being of the dogs. Pidaparthi, however, objected to sterilisation of the dogs without her consent citing lack of trust in the facility.

‘Produce photos and videos of dogs’

The bench then asked Pidaparthi whether she had been able to find a larger accommodation for the dogs if she were to be given their custody, and she responded positively. Pidaparthi informed the court that she was capable, financially as well, to take care of the dogs if given their custody. The bench directed G Madhusudhan Reddy, standing counsel for GHMC, to inspect the new accommodation identified by Pidaparthi and come back with a veterinary status report and a report on the suitability of the new accommodation identified.

The GHMC was also directed to produce photographs and videographs of the dogs in the custody of the NGO’s animal care centre. Pidaparthi’s request for visiting her dogs at the animal care centre was declined for now, and the case was adjourned for further hearing on March 6.